coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The first applicant (“the applicant”), was born in 1974 and lives in Budapest. The second and the third applicant, Dániel Weller and Máté Weller, the applicant’s twin sons, were born in 2005 and live in Budapest.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  In 2000 the first applicant married a Romanian citizen, who currently lives in Hungary. The couple are raising four children from the previous marriage of the wife and they have successfully claimed numerous allowances on their behalf. On 30 June 2005 the wife gave birth to the second and third applicants. Both of them acquired Hungarian nationality by birth, through their father. At the material time, the mother held a residence permit (tartózkodási engedély). She was granted a settlement permit (letelepedési engedély) in May 2007.
8.  On 7 September 2005 the first applicant requested maternity benefit (anyasági támogatás) amounting to 148,000 Hungarian forints (HUF)[1] from the Budapest and Pest County Regional Directorate of the Hungarian Treasury in his own name and on behalf of his children.
9.  On 8 September 2005 the Regional Directorate refused the applicant’s claim. It pointed out that, in the light of the relevant provisions of Act no. 84 of 1998 on Family Support (“the Act”), only mothers, adoptive parents and guardians were entitled to the benefit in question. It also noted that the natural father might only apply for such an allowance if the mother were deceased. The first applicant appealed.
10.  On 20 January 2006 the Hungarian Treasury dismissed his appeal. The Treasury established that, pursuant to the Act, only mothers with Hungarian citizenship might apply for maternity benefit. It further observed that the Act applies only to those non-Hungarian citizens who have obtained settlement permits (letelepedési engedély), being either refugees or citizens of another Member State of the European Union. It concluded that, since the applicant’s wife did not fall into either of these categories, the claim had to be rejected, since the natural father was not entitled to such benefits.
11.  On 6 March 2006 the first applicant sought judicial review before the Pest County Regional Court. He argued that the legal background of the institution of maternity benefit, as well as the decisions of the competent Hungarian authorities, were discriminatory and contravened the Hungarian Constitution and Article 14 of the Convention.
12.  On 5 July 2005 the Regional Court, finding that the administrative authorities’ decisions had been in compliance with the law, dismissed the applicant’s claim. It held, inter alia, that the purpose of maternity benefit was to support the mother and not the entire family or the children, therefore the latter could not be considered to have suffered discrimination.
13.  On 7 August 2006 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court. These proceedings are apparently still pending.
2.  The applicants were born in 1974 and 1975, respectively, and are detained in Diyarbakır prison.
3.  The applicants were taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of Hizbullah, an illegal organisation, on 8 March 1995 and 29 June 1999. On 5 April 1995 and 16 July 1999 they were remanded in custody.
4.  On unspecified dates criminal proceedings were brought against the applicants on charges of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory, as well as membership of Hizbullah. Subsequently, the cases against the applicants were joined before the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
5.  Following the promulgation of Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, the cases were transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.
6.  On 31 March 2005 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicants of attempting to undermine the constitutional order and sentenced them to life imprisonment. On 11 December 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed this judgment. On 9 November 2007 the Diyarbakır Assize Court once again convicted the applicants. According to the information in the case file, the proceedings against the applicants are still pending before the Court of Cassation.
7.  During the proceedings, the first-instance courts examined the applicants’ continued detention at the end of every hearing, either on their own motion or upon the applicants’ request. On each occasion, the courts ordered the applicants’ continued detention on remand having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of evidence and the content of the file.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  On 13 July 1992 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of the Revolutionary Left (the “DEV-SOL”), an illegal organisation.
6.  On 28 July 1992 she was brought before a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court who ordered her detention on remand.
7.  On 18 September and 14 October 1992 and 26 May 1995, the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed three bills of indictment, charging the applicant with attempting to undermine the constitutional order, proscribed by Article 146 of the former Criminal Code.
8.  The case against the applicant was joined to another brought against five other persons. On 28 September 1992 the first hearing before the Istanbul State Security Court was taken up with procedural matters.
9.  By 24 December 2002 the applicant had made several requests for release pending trial to the Istanbul State Security Court. The court dismissed her requests on each occasion, having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of evidence and the content of the case file.
10.  On 24 December 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced her to death, subsequently commuted to life imprisonment. The State Security Court further ordered the applicant’s release from prison, having regard to the total amount of time that she had been in detention.
11.  On 28 April 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 24 December 2002.
12.  On 15 November 2006 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant under Article 146 of the former Criminal Code and sentenced her to life imprisonment.
13.  On 16 April 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the assize court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Ryazan.
5.  She is a military servicewoman. From January 2000 to February 2001 she served in the Russian contingent of the UN Peacekeeping Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
6.  Upon her return, the applicant brought proceedings against the head of her military unit to secure payment of her daily allowance for her service abroad.
7.  On 25 July 2003 the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison partly granted the applicant’s claim and ordered the military unit to pay the applicant 346,050.70 Russian roubles (RUB) in remuneration and RUB 1,000 in expenses for legal advice.
8.  The military unit did not lodge an ordinary appeal, and on 22 August 2003 the judgment became binding and enforceable.
9.  However, following the respondent’s request, on 19 November 2003 the Presidium of the Military Court of the Moscow Command quashed the judgment of 25 July 2003 by way of supervisory review and dismissed the applicant’s claims in full. The reason given for the quashing of the judgment was the “wrongful application of substantive law by the first-instance court”.
4.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Košice.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 17 May 1996 the applicant filed an action with the Košice – okolie District Court. She sought the dissolution of a joint ownership of real property.
7.  On 18 August 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice – okolie District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. The case was not complex. The applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings in that she had challenged judges and an expert. The District Court was responsible for delays totalling 53 months.
8.  The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 40,000 (the equivalent of approximately 1,000 euros at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs.
9.  On 29 September 2004 the District Court issued an interim measure.
On 15 October 2004 the applicant appealed.
10.  On 22 November 2004 the District Court discontinued the appeal proceedings concerning the interim measure as the applicant had not paid the court fees.
11.  On 29 July 2005 the District Court dissolved the joint ownership of the property in issue. On 14 October 2005 the applicant appealed. On 2 December 2005 the District Court delivered a decision correcting a clerical error in its judgment.
12.  On 26 September 2005 the applicant appointed a new legal representative.
13.  On 26 May 2006 the applicant filed a submission with the District Court seeking an interim measure. On 17 July 2006 the applicant withdrew her submission.
14.  On 28 November 2006 the District Court transferred the file to the Court of Appeal.
15.  On 4 April 2007 the Court of Appeal returned the file to the District Court for a decision on the applicant’s request for an exemption from the obligation to pay court fees.
16.  On 15 April 2007 the applicant challenged the judge.
17.  On 20 September 2007 the District Court transferred the file to the Court of Appeal.
18.  On 26 May 2008 the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment of 29 July 2005.
6.  The applicant is an association founded in 1994, with its seat in Budapest.
7.  In March 2004 a Member of Parliament (“the MP”) and other individuals lodged a complaint for abstract review with the Constitutional Court. The complaint requested the constitutional scrutiny of some recent amendments to the Criminal Code which concerned certain drug-related offences.
8.  In July 2004 the MP gave a press interview concerning the complaint.
9.  On 14 September 2004 the applicant – a non-governmental organisation whose declared aim is to promote fundamental rights as well as to strengthen civil society and the rule of law in Hungary and which is active in the field of drug policy – requested the Constitutional Court to grant them access to the complaint pending before it, in accordance with section 19 of Act no. 63 of 1992 on the Protection of Personal Data and the Public Nature of Data of Public Interest (“the Data Act 1992”).
10.  On 12 October 2004 the Constitutional Court denied the request without having consulted the MP, explaining that a complaint pending before it could not be made available to outsiders without the approval of its author.
11.  On 10 November 2004 the applicant brought an action against the Constitutional Court. It requested the Budapest Regional Court to oblige the respondent to give it access to the complaint, in accordance with section 21(7) of the Data Act 1992.
12.  On 13 December 2004 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision on the constitutionality of the impugned amendments to the Criminal Code. It contained a summary of the complaint in question and was pronounced publicly.
13.  Notwithstanding the fact that the Constitutional Court procedure had already been terminated, on 24 January 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action. It held in essence that the complaint could not be regarded as “data” and the lack of access to it could not be disputed under the Data Act 1992.
14.  The applicant appealed, disputing the Regional Court’s findings. Moreover, it requested that the complaint be made available to it after the deletion of any personal information contained therein.
15.  On 5 May 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision. It considered that the complaint contained some “data”; however, that data was “personal” and could not be accessed without the author’s approval. Such protection of personal data could not be overridden by other lawful interests, including the accessibility of public information.
16.  The applicant’s secondary claim was rejected without any particular reasoning.
5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Helsinki.
6.  The applicant purchased a company in September 1995. The company was wound-up on its own initiative in March 1996. A criminal investigation was started in regard to the financial activities of the company in February 1997 and the applicant was questioned by the police for the first time on 21 April 1997. He was, together with two other persons, suspected of aggravated debtor’s dishonesty and false accounting in 1995 and 1996.
7.  The pre-trial investigation was finalised on 26 November 1997. On 27 March 1998 the prosecutor waived prosecution due to insufficient evidence.
8.  On 22 April 1998 the bankruptcy estate requested the State prosecutor to examine the previous decision not to prosecute. On 23 December 1998 the deputy State prosecutor requested the police to conduct an additional investigation without delay due to the time that had already passed since the beginning of the investigation. On 23 December 1999, the local prosecutor was ordered to bring charges against all the suspects. An additional investigation was requested. The last investigation was concluded on 13 January 2000.
9.  The charges were brought against the applicant and the other defendants on 16 February 2000. The District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) dismissed all the charges on 1 March 2002.
10.  Following the prosecutor’s appeal and after a two-day oral hearing, the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) convicted the applicant on 18 June 2004. He was sentenced to five months’ imprisonment. The sentence was amended for reasons of equity in view of two previous prison sentences dating from 2002 and 2004.
11.  In his appeal to the Supreme Court the applicant raised the issue of the excessive length of the proceedings. The Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal on 8 February 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Toronto, Canada.
5.  On 8 August 2000 Mr A. instituted civil proceedings in the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv (“the court”) against the applicant and Mr D. alleging that he had been humiliated by them. He claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
6.  On an unspecified date Mr A. requested the court to secure his claim by prohibiting the Migration Office of the Kharkiv Department of the Ministry of Interior (“the Migration Office”) from issuing the applicant with an authorisation to leave Ukraine to live permanently abroad. On 18 July 2002 the court granted Mr A.’s request.
7.  On 23 and 30 September 2002 the court quashed the ruling of 18 July 2002 and attached the applicant’s flat.
8.  On 31 October 2002 the applicant went to live permanently in Canada. On 13 December 2002 he came back to Ukraine.
9.  On 25 March 2003 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”), following Mr A.’s appeal, quashed the rulings of 23 and 30 September 2002 and remitted the case for a new consideration to the court.
10.  On 21 April 2003 the applicant lodged a counterclaim against Mr A. claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
11.  In May 2003 the applicant waived his permanent residence in Canada in order to restore his right to receive a pension in Ukraine.
12.  In a letter of 2 October 2003 the court explained to the Head of the Migration Office that as on 25 March 2003 the rulings of 23 and 30 September 2002 had been quashed, the Migration Office should abide by the ruling of 18 July 2002.
13.  On 21 July 2004 the applicant again left Ukraine for Canada, where he lives now.
14. Since July 2004 he has been represented by his representative before the domestic courts.
15.  On 22 April 2005 the court rejected Mr. A.’s claim and partly allowed the applicant’s counterclaim.
16.  On 16 December 2005 the Court of Appeal amended the judgment of 22 April 2005 and dismissed the applicant’s counterclaim.
17.  On 23 February 2006 Mr A. appealed in cassation before the Supreme Court. The cassation proceedings are still pending.
18.  According to the documents provided by the Government, in the course of the proceedings some forty-nine hearings were listed by the domestic courts. Nine hearings were adjourned because the judge was involved in other proceedings, one because he was on holiday and one because the judge was ill. Some twenty-four hearings were adjourned because one or more parties to the proceedings or their representatives failed to appear or at their request. From the documents in the case file it cannot be seen that the domestic courts took any steps to ensure the parties’ presence in the court. No hearings were adjourned solely due to the applicant’s failure to appear.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine.
5.  On 4 July 1997 the Kyivsky District Court of Donetsk (“the District Court”) fined the applicant with 350 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) for corruption in the course of his duties. On 17 December 1997 the President of the Donetsk Regional Court quashed this decision and terminated the proceedings against the applicant as time-barred.
6.  On 5 May 2000 the District Court awarded the applicant UAH 500[1] in compensation for non-pecuniary caused by his conviction, to be paid by the Office of the State Treasury in the Kyivsky District of Donetsk (“the Office”). The decision was upheld on 5 June 2000 by the Donetsk Regional Court).
7.  On 29 June 2000 the Bailiffs’ Service of the Kyivsky District of Donetsk (“the Bailiffs”) instituted enforcement proceedings and transferred the writ of execution to the Office.
8.  On 6 June 2001 the District Court rectified its judgment of 5 May 2000, specifying that the applicant was to be paid UAH 500 from the State Budget through the Office.
9.  On 26 June 2001 the writ of execution was sent to the Office, which transferred it to the Department of the State Treasury of the Donetsk Region.
10.  In November 2004 the writ of execution was transferred to the Bailiffs’ Service of the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv, which on 7 December 2004 refused to institute enforcement proceedings as it fell outside its jurisdiction.
11.  On 25 December 2004 the writ of execution was transferred to the Enforcement Department of the Ministry of Justice, which on 21 January 2005 refused to institute enforcement proceedings.
12.  On 11 February 2005 the Donetsk Regional Bailiffs’ Service refused to institute enforcement proceedings since the writ of execution had expired on 5 June 2003.
13.  On 20 May 2005 the District Court ordered a new writ of execution to be sent to the Department.
14.  On 20 June 2005 the Donetsk Regional Bailiffs’ Service opened enforcement proceedings.
15.  The judgment was enforced on 12 January 2008.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in the town of Yevpatoriya, Ukraine.
5.  On 8 December 1999 the Chornomorsk District Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the District Court”) fined the applicant UAH 136 for having exercised commercial activity without a licence and ordered the confiscation of 268.5 tonnes of the waste metal collected by him.
6.  On 22 December 1999 the same court, following the protest of the Chrornomorsk District Prosecutor of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, quashed this decision and terminated the administrative proceedings against the applicant. The case file was transferred to the Chornomorsk District Prosecutor’s Service of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea for a decision on account of the applicant’s criminal liability for tax evasion.
7.  On 22 January 2000 the Head of the Chornomorsk Tax Inspectorate refused to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant.
8.  On 27 January 2000 the District Court examined the same case file again and fined the applicant UAH 136 for having exercised commercial activity without a licence and ordered the confiscation of 268.5 tonnes of the waste metal collected by him. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.
9.  On 27 April 2000 the Chornomorsk Bailiffs’ Service, noting that proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, ordered the suspension of the enforcement proceedings in respect of the decision of 27 January 2000. However, the Yevpatoriya Tax Inspectorate sold the waste metal.
10.  On 10 May 2000 the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea quashed the decision of 27 January 2000 and terminated the proceedings on the ground that the same facts had already been examined by the court.
11.  On 19 April 2002 the District Court ordered the restitution of the 268.5 tonnes of the waste metal to the applicant.
12.  On 20 August 2002 the same court, following the applicant’s request, modified the ruling of 19 April 2002 and ordered the State Treasury to pay the applicant UAH 89,410[1] in compensation for the waste metal sold by the Tax Inspectorate.
13.  The applicant challenged the Bailiff’s inactivity in enforcing the ruling of 19 April 2002 on numerous occasions before the domestic authorities.
14.   In September 2002 the applicant lodged his claim for compensation for damage caused by the administrative proceedings against him and the confiscation of his property with the District Court. On 10 December 2003 the District Court ordered the State Treasury to pay the applicant UAH 3,000. On 14 July 2004 the Court of Appeal of the Crimea modified this decision and ordered the same amount to be paid to the applicant from the State Budget.
15. The ruling of 19 April 2002, as amended by the ruling of 20 August 2002, and the judgment of 10 December 2003 were enforced in August 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Košice.
5.  He was the successful plaintiff in civil proceedings for payment against an individual which ended with a judgment of the Košice II District Court of 6 August 1998.
6.  On 3 February 1999 enforcement proceedings were brought against the applicant’s debtor (file no. Ex 4/99).
7.  The debtor submitted his objections to the enforcement and its costs to the executions officer. On 24 March 1999 the latter transferred the objections to the District Court for decision (file no. Er 85/99). The objections were dismissed on 16 September 2003.
8.  On 6 August 2003 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about delays in the proceedings pending under file no. Er 85/99. On 5 November 2003 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay, awarded him SKK 25,000 (equivalent to 604 euros (EUR) at that time) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and ordered reimbursement of his legal costs. It did not order the District Court to proceed without further delay on the ground that a decision on the debtor’s objections had already been taken.
9.  On 13 April 2005 the executions officer returned his authorisation for enforcement to the District Court with the applicant’s consent, as the debtor had no property with which he could satisfy the applicant’s claim. The enforcement proceedings thus ended.
4.  The applicants were born in 1921 and 1926 respectively and live in Gaziantep.
5.  In 1999 the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicants (plot no. 746) in the Aşağıçardak village, in Nizip, in order to build the Birecik dam.
6.  On 9 February 1999 the applicants brought an action before the Nizip Civil Court for additional compensation.
7.  On 30 December 1999 the Nizip Civil Court of First Instance awarded the applicants additional compensation of 15,748,251,500 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 28 February 1999.
8.  On 26 June 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
9.  On 3 December 2002 and 23 May 2007 the administration paid the applicants TRL 47,876,259,385[2] and 24,628.81 Turkish liras (TRY[3])[4] respectively in additional compensation, together with interest.